Re: [MinGW-dvlpr] __PCC__ why?

On 22/07/12 16:10, Earnie Boyd wrote:
> In July, 2009, a Gregory McGarry added changes for __PCC__ to
> _mingw.h. Later changes were added to CRT_fp10.c and CRT_fp8.c for
> this compiler. This search
> https://sourceforge.net/search/?group_artifact_id=302435&type_of_search=artifact&group_id=2435&words=PCC
> shows eight artifacts for the patches. Do we really want to cater to
> __PCC__ and encumber our headers and code with it? Do we allow anyone
> who wants a compiler to do so; if not do we keep __PCC__?
My 2p -- it is unwanted/unnecessary pollution, so let's rip it out.
Our headers should be required to support *our* compiler suite,
*exclusively*. If A. N. Other wishes to derive headers from ours, for
his alternative compiler suite, that's absolutely fine, but it then
becomes his responsibility to maintain and distribute his derivatives.
He should have no reasonable expectation that we would carry his
development in this fashion.
--
Regards,
Keith.

On 22/07/12 16:10, Earnie Boyd wrote:
> In July, 2009, a Gregory McGarry added changes for __PCC__ to
> _mingw.h. Later changes were added to CRT_fp10.c and CRT_fp8.c for
> this compiler. This search
> https://sourceforge.net/search/?group_artifact_id=302435&type_of_search=artifact&group_id=2435&words=PCC
> shows eight artifacts for the patches. Do we really want to cater to
> __PCC__ and encumber our headers and code with it? Do we allow anyone
> who wants a compiler to do so; if not do we keep __PCC__?
My 2p -- it is unwanted/unnecessary pollution, so let's rip it out.
Our headers should be required to support *our* compiler suite,
*exclusively*. If A. N. Other wishes to derive headers from ours, for
his alternative compiler suite, that's absolutely fine, but it then
becomes his responsibility to maintain and distribute his derivatives.
He should have no reasonable expectation that we would carry his
development in this fashion.
--
Regards,
Keith.

On Sun, Jul 22, 2012 at 12:06 PM, Keith Marshall wrote:
> On 22/07/12 16:10, Earnie Boyd wrote:
>> In July, 2009, a Gregory McGarry added changes for __PCC__ to
>> _mingw.h. Later changes were added to CRT_fp10.c and CRT_fp8.c for
>> this compiler. This search
>> https://sourceforge.net/search/?group_artifact_id=302435&type_of_search=artifact&group_id=2435&words=PCC
>> shows eight artifacts for the patches. Do we really want to cater to
>> __PCC__ and encumber our headers and code with it? Do we allow anyone
>> who wants a compiler to do so; if not do we keep __PCC__?
>
> My 2p -- it is unwanted/unnecessary pollution, so let's rip it out.
>
> Our headers should be required to support *our* compiler suite,
> *exclusively*. If A. N. Other wishes to derive headers from ours, for
> his alternative compiler suite, that's absolutely fine, but it then
> becomes his responsibility to maintain and distribute his derivatives.
> He should have no reasonable expectation that we would carry his
> development in this fashion.
Yea, it is a precedent I don't want to continue. Besides making the
headers larger than necessary it also makes it harder to maintain.
I'll remove it in an up and coming patch.
--
Earnie
-- https://sites.google.com/site/earnieboyd